Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

A very nasty piece of work. , 03 Nov 2008
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!

The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.

If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.


Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!, 19 Jul 2008
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.

Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.

Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.

Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.


Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof., 29 Jul 2007
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.

He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.

Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.

Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.

All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.

A very good argument, but now painfully out of date, 01 Feb 2007
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.

This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.

To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.

Outstanding, 03 Feb 2006
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.

Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

A very nasty piece of work. , 03 Nov 2008
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!

The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.

If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.


Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!, 19 Jul 2008
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.

Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.

Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.

Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.


Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof., 29 Jul 2007
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.

He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.

Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.

Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.

All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.

A very good argument, but now painfully out of date, 01 Feb 2007
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.

This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.

To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.

Outstanding, 03 Feb 2006
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.

Surprsingly good attempt to make anarchism seem reasonable, 17 Nov 2008
The author had been an architect and a teacher and this book is a brave attempt to make anarchy seem reasonable.

The author of course dismisses all the pointless assassinations carried out by anarchists in the late nineteennth and early twentieth centuries as mere aberrations.

Although some of his ideas initially sound attractive and plausible a litte thought would soon make one dismisss them as impractable.

Whilst I don't support anarchism, I do however think that our government has become too big and too involved with every asoect of our daily lives. We do need to find a way of getting unnecessary governmental interference and bureaucracy out of our lives.



Provocative,, 21 Oct 2007
Ward quotes Martin Buber: "All forms of government has this in common: each possesses more power than is required by the given conditions." Buber calls this this "political surplus". One only has to look around the world to see how such political surplus is spent.

I was surprised at the extent of anarchist influence. Ward devotes 4 pages to how anarchism functioned practically is Spain in the 1930's, where 3 million people were organized in anarchist communes.

Anarchists have been at the forefront of considering ecological sustainability. Ward cites authors who believe that anarchism is the only approach that can meet the ecological challenges we face.

Given the problems socialism has faced, Ward argues it is too soon to write off anarchism when looking for alternatives to present forms of government. We may have been taught little about anarchism except to be dismissive of it, but Ward's book is an excellent start to understanding what anarchism offers. There are many references to the works of anarchists.

If capitalism seems to work, albeit at a considerable ecological cost, the growing ecological crises may force us within our lifetimes to explore alternative ways of living. Socialism may not be a big enough change, retaining as it does a strong central government with its own political surplus. If you think you can manage more political participation that casting a vote every few years, anarchism may be worth studying.

Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

A very nasty piece of work. , 03 Nov 2008
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!

The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.

If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.


Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!, 19 Jul 2008
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.

Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.

Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.

Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.


Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof., 29 Jul 2007
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.

He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.

Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.

Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.

All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.

A very good argument, but now painfully out of date, 01 Feb 2007
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.

This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.

To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.

Outstanding, 03 Feb 2006
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.

Surprsingly good attempt to make anarchism seem reasonable, 17 Nov 2008
The author had been an architect and a teacher and this book is a brave attempt to make anarchy seem reasonable.

The author of course dismisses all the pointless assassinations carried out by anarchists in the late nineteennth and early twentieth centuries as mere aberrations.

Although some of his ideas initially sound attractive and plausible a litte thought would soon make one dismisss them as impractable.

Whilst I don't support anarchism, I do however think that our government has become too big and too involved with every asoect of our daily lives. We do need to find a way of getting unnecessary governmental interference and bureaucracy out of our lives.



Provocative,, 21 Oct 2007
Ward quotes Martin Buber: "All forms of government has this in common: each possesses more power than is required by the given conditions." Buber calls this this "political surplus". One only has to look around the world to see how such political surplus is spent.

I was surprised at the extent of anarchist influence. Ward devotes 4 pages to how anarchism functioned practically is Spain in the 1930's, where 3 million people were organized in anarchist communes.

Anarchists have been at the forefront of considering ecological sustainability. Ward cites authors who believe that anarchism is the only approach that can meet the ecological challenges we face.

Given the problems socialism has faced, Ward argues it is too soon to write off anarchism when looking for alternatives to present forms of government. We may have been taught little about anarchism except to be dismissive of it, but Ward's book is an excellent start to understanding what anarchism offers. There are many references to the works of anarchists.

If capitalism seems to work, albeit at a considerable ecological cost, the growing ecological crises may force us within our lifetimes to explore alternative ways of living. Socialism may not be a big enough change, retaining as it does a strong central government with its own political surplus. If you think you can manage more political participation that casting a vote every few years, anarchism may be worth studying.


walks the walk, 21 Jul 2007
Stuart Christie, more well known for his 'involvement' with the Angry Brigade anarcho/revolutionary movement than his attempt to assinate the reactionary Spanish dictator Franco, is a leftie who walks the walk rather than just talking the talk. Paints a fantastic picture of a working class upbringing in post war Glasgow and his recollections of a lenghty prison stretch in a Madrid jail with other political prisoners of the anti Franco resistance are written with verve, wit and not too much of playing the blame game. Meu culpa. Later life in London, during the time a lot of us on the left thought a workers takeover of the UK economy was on the cards, is a joy to read as is his account of the numerous attempts by the old bill to stitch him up are no surprise to anyone who lived through those hectic times. Great read for everybody, even your Granny.

absolutely fascinating and brilliant, 20 Dec 2005
I picked this book up at book shop here in Edinburgh. I'd never heard of it - and was amused by a young Scottish Anarchist trying to blow Franco up. I've not been able to put it down since getting it - it is absolutely fascinating. Not only is the personal story rivetting - but it also has reminded me of past struggles to try and makes social change to make a better society. It also made me realise that the things we were protesting again are still there and the struggle for right and equality are still valid. Society here in Britian and the World has changed so much; in the past there were struggle for justice - but now we are so seduced into the aquiring of property and that if you are not you feel like some dinosaur from the past. This book has reminded me what it is all about and that that niggling feeling that you don't fit in and buy into the consumerist ideology isn't that you have a problem but that the problem is the make up of society. It is also relevent when we are seeing protests against world poverty and the other protest against what is going on - in reminding us that we each can make a differnence - when se so often feel that our voices are lost. If for nothing else I have to thank Stuart Christie for reminding me of this. I'd recommend this book to anyone to read. Even if you do not happen to agree with the politics - I am sure that reading his account of incarciartion in a Franco gaol - where invertantly this ended up putting him into contact with some of Spain's greatest academics - will find it fascinating

An absolute cracker, 06 Oct 2005
This is 'real-life boys-own anarchist meets the establishment' adventure! And meeting the Spanish establishment (in a hare-brained plot to kill the Spanish dictator Franco in the 1960s) was where Christie bites off a wee bit more than he can chew. If that's not enough reason to buy the book, you get a richly-evoked Glasgow childhood and more shenanigans in London in the 1970s with bomb plots, squatters and of course the Old Bill.


Great Read, 16 May 2005
This book is hugely entertaining, hilarious at times whilst unbelievable at others with just enough anarchist philosophy as the backdrop to the story of an incredible life.

Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

A very nasty piece of work. , 03 Nov 2008
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!

The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.

If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.


Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!, 19 Jul 2008
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.

Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.

Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.

Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.


Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof., 29 Jul 2007
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.

He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.

Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.

Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.

All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.

A very good argument, but now painfully out of date, 01 Feb 2007
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.

This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.

To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.

Outstanding, 03 Feb 2006
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.

Surprsingly good attempt to make anarchism seem reasonable, 17 Nov 2008
The author had been an architect and a teacher and this book is a brave attempt to make anarchy seem reasonable.

The author of course dismisses all the pointless assassinations carried out by anarchists in the late nineteennth and early twentieth centuries as mere aberrations.

Although some of his ideas initially sound attractive and plausible a litte thought would soon make one dismisss them as impractable.

Whilst I don't support anarchism, I do however think that our government has become too big and too involved with every asoect of our daily lives. We do need to find a way of getting unnecessary governmental interference and bureaucracy out of our lives.



Provocative,, 21 Oct 2007
Ward quotes Martin Buber: "All forms of government has this in common: each possesses more power than is required by the given conditions." Buber calls this this "political surplus". One only has to look around the world to see how such political surplus is spent.

I was surprised at the extent of anarchist influence. Ward devotes 4 pages to how anarchism functioned practically is Spain in the 1930's, where 3 million people were organized in anarchist communes.

Anarchists have been at the forefront of considering ecological sustainability. Ward cites authors who believe that anarchism is the only approach that can meet the ecological challenges we face.

Given the problems socialism has faced, Ward argues it is too soon to write off anarchism when looking for alternatives to present forms of government. We may have been taught little about anarchism except to be dismissive of it, but Ward's book is an excellent start to understanding what anarchism offers. There are many references to the works of anarchists.

If capitalism seems to work, albeit at a considerable ecological cost, the growing ecological crises may force us within our lifetimes to explore alternative ways of living. Socialism may not be a big enough change, retaining as it does a strong central government with its own political surplus. If you think you can manage more political participation that casting a vote every few years, anarchism may be worth studying.


walks the walk, 21 Jul 2007
Stuart Christie, more well known for his 'involvement' with the Angry Brigade anarcho/revolutionary movement than his attempt to assinate the reactionary Spanish dictator Franco, is a leftie who walks the walk rather than just talking the talk. Paints a fantastic picture of a working class upbringing in post war Glasgow and his recollections of a lenghty prison stretch in a Madrid jail with other political prisoners of the anti Franco resistance are written with verve, wit and not too much of playing the blame game. Meu culpa. Later life in London, during the time a lot of us on the left thought a workers takeover of the UK economy was on the cards, is a joy to read as is his account of the numerous attempts by the old bill to stitch him up are no surprise to anyone who lived through those hectic times. Great read for everybody, even your Granny.

absolutely fascinating and brilliant, 20 Dec 2005
I picked this book up at book shop here in Edinburgh. I'd never heard of it - and was amused by a young Scottish Anarchist trying to blow Franco up. I've not been able to put it down since getting it - it is absolutely fascinating. Not only is the personal story rivetting - but it also has reminded me of past struggles to try and makes social change to make a better society. It also made me realise that the things we were protesting again are still there and the struggle for right and equality are still valid. Society here in Britian and the World has changed so much; in the past there were struggle for justice - but now we are so seduced into the aquiring of property and that if you are not you feel like some dinosaur from the past. This book has reminded me what it is all about and that that niggling feeling that you don't fit in and buy into the consumerist ideology isn't that you have a problem but that the problem is the make up of society. It is also relevent when we are seeing protests against world poverty and the other protest against what is going on - in reminding us that we each can make a differnence - when se so often feel that our voices are lost. If for nothing else I have to thank Stuart Christie for reminding me of this. I'd recommend this book to anyone to read. Even if you do not happen to agree with the politics - I am sure that reading his account of incarciartion in a Franco gaol - where invertantly this ended up putting him into contact with some of Spain's greatest academics - will find it fascinating

An absolute cracker, 06 Oct 2005
This is 'real-life boys-own anarchist meets the establishment' adventure! And meeting the Spanish establishment (in a hare-brained plot to kill the Spanish dictator Franco in the 1960s) was where Christie bites off a wee bit more than he can chew. If that's not enough reason to buy the book, you get a richly-evoked Glasgow childhood and more shenanigans in London in the 1970s with bomb plots, squatters and of course the Old Bill.


Great Read, 16 May 2005
This book is hugely entertaining, hilarious at times whilst unbelievable at others with just enough anarchist philosophy as the backdrop to the story of an incredible life.

An Insightful, eye opening masterpiece!, 08 Dec 2000
Mutual Aid is a masterpiece of political, sociological, historical, and anthropological work and even zoology. It challenges many common misconceptions about human nature and evolution that are held by the majority of people, previously including myself.The main idea it challenges is that of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" in nature and as a part of human nature and its role in evolution. Peter Kropotkin points out that the struggle for survival is against harsh conditions rather than between inividuals and that the best way for a species to survive is by " Mutual aid and support" rather than "Individualistic struggle" and points to many examples in nature such as migratory birds, ants, bees, monkeys and ultimately humans who survived when others such as the sabre tooth tiger failed (despite its physical superiority in terms of strength and speed and sharp teeth and claws) because of humans ability to live in societies and cooperate whereas the sabre tooth tiger was far too individual. Kropotkins strength is his critical use of endless examples to back himself up which adds great power to his arguement. The significance of Mutual aid is collossal, even today. Free Market Capitalism is founded on the idea of survival of the fittest being the best way for humans to live and that inequality is natural and therefore justifiable whereas Kropotkin points to the extremely sociable and prosperous manner in which many tribes and societies have lived i.e.Greece.Also the tendency of humans to behave as savages has also underpinned the need for a state; however if humans left to there own devices can cooperate then there is no need for a state as humans can look after themselves. Also, when Maggie Thatcher famously said:"There is no such thing as society" to back up her vision of a free market, she was fundamentally wrong. Krpotkin says that as we are evolved from primates who are very sociable, then society is ANTERIOR to man, not man made.

To sum up: "In the ethical progress of man, mutual support- not mutual struggle has had the leading part."

Chomsky on Anarchism, 18 Jun 2007
This is not a theoretical book; Chomsky does not see himself as an anarchist thinker but rather as a "fellow traveler" and so this collection of interviews, talks, and essays spaning from the early 1970s to 2004 contains no original theory from the man himself. Chomsky is as accessible as ever however and this book's interviews will give a reader new to anarchist thought a firm idea of what anarchists are against, and what they are for, with further elaboration of Chomsky's own critique of capitalism, state and government, and their alternatives in the essays and talks.

A very nasty piece of work. , 03 Nov 2008
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!

The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.

If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.


Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!, 19 Jul 2008
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.

Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.

Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.

Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.


Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof., 29 Jul 2007
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.

He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.

Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.

Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.

All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.

A very good argument, but now painfully out of date, 01 Feb 2007
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.

This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.

To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.

Outstanding, 03 Feb 2006
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.

Surprsingly good attempt to make anarchism seem reasonable, 17 Nov 2008
The author had been an architect and a teacher and this book is a brave attempt to make anarchy seem reasonable.

The author of course dismisses all the pointless assassinations carried out by anarchists in the late nineteennth and early twentieth centuries as mere aberrations.

Although some of his ideas initially sound attractive and plausible a litte thought would soon make one dismisss them as impractable.

Whilst I don't support anarchism, I do however think that our government has become too big and too involved with every asoect of our daily lives. We do need to find a way of getting unnecessary governmental interference and bureaucracy out of our lives.



Provocative,, 21 Oct 2007
Ward quotes Martin Buber: "All forms of government has this in common: each possesses more power than is required by the given conditions." Buber calls this this "political surplus". One only has to look around the world to see how such political surplus is spent.

I was surprised at the extent of anarchist influence. Ward devotes 4 pages to how anarchism functioned practically is Spain in the 1930's, where 3 million people were organized in anarchist communes.

Anarchists have been at the forefront of considering ecological sustainability. Ward cites authors who believe that anarchism is the only approach that can meet the ecological challenges we face.

Given the problems socialism has faced, Ward argues it is too soon to write off anarchism when looking for alternatives to present forms of government. We may have been taught little about anarchism except to be dismissive of it, but Ward's book is an excellent start to understanding what anarchism offers. There are many references to the works of anarchists.

If capitalism seems to work, albeit at a considerable ecological cost, the growing ecological crises may force us within our lifetimes to explore alternative ways of living. Socialism may not be a big enough change, retaining as it does a strong central government with its own political surplus. If you think you can manage more political participation that casting a vote every few years, anarchism may be worth studying.


walks the walk, 21 Jul 2007
Stuart Christie, more well known for his 'involvement' with the Angry Brigade anarcho/revolutionary movement than his attempt to assinate the reactionary Spanish dictator Franco, is a leftie who walks the walk rather than just talking the talk. Paints a fantastic picture of a working class upbringing in post war Glasgow and his recollections of a lenghty prison stretch in a Madrid jail with other political prisoners of the anti Franco resistance are written with verve, wit and not too much of playing the blame game. Meu culpa. Later life in London, during the time a lot of us on the left thought a workers takeover of the UK economy was on the cards, is a joy to read as is his account of the numerous attempts by the old bill to stitch him up are no surprise to anyone who lived through those hectic times. Great read for everybody, even your Granny.

absolutely fascinating and brilliant, 20 Dec 2005
I picked this book up at book shop here in Edinburgh. I'd never heard of it - and was amused by a young Scottish Anarchist trying to blow Franco up. I've not been able to put it down since getting it - it is absolutely fascinating. Not only is the personal story rivetting - but it also has reminded me of past struggles to try and makes social change to make a better society. It also made me realise that the things we were protesting again are still there and the struggle for right and equality are still valid. Society here in Britian and the World has changed so much; in the past there were struggle for justice - but now we are so seduced into the aquiring of property and that if you are not you feel like some dinosaur from the past. This book has reminded me what it is all about and that that niggling feeling that you don't fit in and buy into the consumerist ideology isn't that you have a problem but that the problem is the make up of society. It is also relevent when we are seeing protests against world poverty and the other protest against what is going on - in reminding us that we each can make a differnence - when se so often feel that our voices are lost. If for nothing else I have to thank Stuart Christie for reminding me of this. I'd recommend this book to anyone to read. Even if you do not happen to agree with the politics - I am sure that reading his account of incarciartion in a Franco gaol - where invertantly this ended up putting him into contact with some of Spain's greatest academics - will find it fascinating

An absolute cracker, 06 Oct 2005
This is 'real-life boys-own anarchist meets the establishment' adventure! And meeting the Spanish establishment (in a hare-brained plot to kill the Spanish dictator Franco in the 1960s) was where Christie bites off a wee bit more than he can chew. If that's not enough reason to buy the book, you get a richly-evoked Glasgow childhood and more shenanigans in London in the 1970s with bomb plots, squatters and of course the Old Bill.


Great Read, 16 May 2005
This book is hugely entertaining, hilarious at times whilst unbelievable at others with just enough anarchist philosophy as the backdrop to the story of an incredible life.

An Insightful, eye opening masterpiece!, 08 Dec 2000
Mutual Aid is a masterpiece of political, sociological, historical, and anthropological work and even zoology. It challenges many common misconceptions about human nature and evolution that are held by the majority of people, previously including myself.The main idea it challenges is that of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" in nature and as a part of human nature and its role in evolution. Peter Kropotkin points out that the struggle for survival is against harsh conditions rather than between inividuals and that the best way for a species to survive is by " Mutual aid and support" rather than "Individualistic struggle" and points to many examples in nature such as migratory birds, ants, bees, monkeys and ultimately humans who survived when others such as the sabre tooth tiger failed (despite its physical superiority in terms of strength and speed and sharp teeth and claws) because of humans ability to live in societies and cooperate whereas the sabre tooth tiger was far too individual. Kropotkins strength is his critical use of endless examples to back himself up which adds great power to his arguement. The significance of Mutual aid is collossal, even today. Free Market Capitalism is founded on the idea of survival of the fittest being the best way for humans to live and that inequality is natural and therefore justifiable whereas Kropotkin points to the extremely sociable and prosperous manner in which many tribes and societies have lived i.e.Greece.Also the tendency of humans to behave as savages has also underpinned the need for a state; however if humans left to there own devices can cooperate then there is no need for a state as humans can look after themselves. Also, when Maggie Thatcher famously said:"There is no such thing as society" to back up her vision of a free market, she was fundamentally wrong. Krpotkin says that as we are evolved from primates who are very sociable, then society is ANTERIOR to man, not man made.

To sum up: "In the ethical progress of man, mutual support- not mutual struggle has had the leading part."

Baby he's an anarchist - not a spineless liberal, 02 Oct 2007
I never lived through the anarcho-punk era, the Class War, the miners strike, occupations of universities in the 60s or anything else modern radicals hark on about. Reading Ian Bone's autobiography puts it all in some drink-fueled perspective with some insightful wit, cutting remarks and more sarcasm than an episode of Blackadder.

The book covers the life of Ian up until he packed most things in around 1986 and it's filled with his activities with his socialist parents, his discovery of anarchism after reading a copy of Punch at the dentists, student activism, Alarm and corruption in Swansea and the common factor... drink... LOTS of drink. It's an easy read (making me miss a morning's worth of lectures because I was so engrossed) that flows well and is so full of derision for all the radical politics he admires it is wonderfully self-despising.

Anecdotes are a-plenty in the book, and not hoping to spoil them all, but being chased out of a blokes house with a meatcleaver after urinating on his bike, a meeting with Crass with the ubiquitous lentil soup, flogging newspapers at 10am in the morning on a picket line and my all-time favourite of rushing the stage at the CND meeting. You really can't make this stuff up! There are loads of newspaper cuttings throughout, photos and excerpts from Class War. All-in-all it has everything, but most importantly it's Ian's comedic-chatty-foul-mouthed writing style that makes this colourful history come to life.

As he is always credited with - the most dangerous man in Britain - this book gives a full account of those mad years where the Angry Brigade met punk on a windswept afternoon, drank a LOT of beer and indulged in a riot or two. Cheap, accessible, anecdotal, laugh-out-loud funny and informative all in one go, this book is not to be missed. It probably helps if you have a few drinks whilst reading (probably makes more sense) but grab a copy, a brick and enjoy! It's an excellent read an incitement to either go drinking or burn down some governmental building... or both at once!

An education and a laugh, 26 Feb 2007
Not being a great fan of memoirs or autobiographies I bravely picked this up with it's promise of controversy and rebellion. I really enjoyed it; it's a great read. It gives a really good picture of the times and the development of a man's consciousness. I was impressed with the way the narrative matured with his experiences. It's also a great insight into an age before I was born or at least can fully remember. It is an incredibly easy read and I flew through the book effortlessly.

It also includes many of the debates in past and contemporary anarchism - such as the place and use of violence, issues of sexuality, direct action etc. Most of this is spoken in a brutally sincere yet amusing way. There were many parts where I laughed out aloud at some of the absurdities of the movement. Only anarchists (of all political perspectives) can laugh at themselves like this. The criticisms I have are minor and they are matters of opinion, rather than flaws with the book itself. All in all, I recommend this for book for all working people (and the "rich", whom may want to give a bit back to those they've stolen from).

Sartorial politics lavortorial humour, 05 Nov 2006
This is a fantastic voyage from Ian Bones experience and politics up to 1986. As such it lives through the heady days of 1968 student culture, and 1970s/1980s unemployment culture. There's Ians participation in community politics in Swansea with the Alarm newsletter where a council leader was jailed for corruption, and how this broadened into national political effect with Class War. The description of the illicit birth of Class War from amongst the victims of Thatchers Britain are good, though the people concerned would not see themselves as victims. There are many good descritions of Class War politics, from the infamous Bash the Rich marches from where the book gets its name, to the incident where Ian rubbed mud into Joan Ruddocks face at a CND press conference - this is pure entertainment with a packed political message. Some of the photos are funny as F#ck too. All in all an easy read of Ians political and social life as it mixes with the many major issues of the day.